The US Hawks should:

[Bill Cummings]

Bob,
You’re good with putting up drawings.
How about drawing up a picture of you prone on the floor with a giant hammer stretched out but just short of reaching a giant ban button and with me holding on to your ankle with one hand and the other one anchored to a oily axle rod. (Or some such other tenuous anchor point.) --Or even a half squished banana hooked to a cluster of other bananas) Use you imagination and produce a cartoon for my enjoyment. Even if it’s only a PM.

[Bob Kuczewski]

My drawing skills aren't that good, and it takes me hours to come up with most of the drawings I've posted.

But I like your idea ... and one picture is worth a thousand words. Hmmm.... maybe we just need to teach Tad to draw!!  

By the way, I'd be interested in your thoughts on limiting the posting rights in the "Building the US Hawks" forum to restrict it to people who've made a commitment to actually help build a new national hang gliding association.

Thanks.

[SamKellner]

Bob,
You’re good with putting up drawings.
How about drawing up a picture of you prone on the floor with a giant hammer stretched out but just short of reaching a giant ban button and with me holding on to your ankle with one hand and the other one anchored to some such other tenuous anchor point.) .

I volunteer

[Bill Cummings]

“Bob K,---
At this time, I'm thinking that maybe the "Building the US Hawks" forum should be limited to people who show that they are really interested in building a new national organization and who can use effective communication skills in doing that. How does that sound to everyone?”

Forum rules
Speak your mind. Try to be courteous to others.
Don't be too shy to say what you think.
Don't be too proud to say you were wrong.


BC-----
How about a code written and agreed upon by the majority of voters that puts certain foul or otherwise inappropriate language on and increasingly darkening back ground on a scale of ten shades?

Everyone will know the rules going in and each violation will, automatically, increasingly, make the print more difficult to read.
When a post gets to, let’s say, a back ground shade 7 or 8 it’s just aggravating enough that the reader is seriously thinking of giving up trying to decipher anymore.

This would take the emotion out of a strike against anyone or even the appearance of prejudice since the person not following the rules is doing it to themselves.

Or maybe the person not following the rules will have the font reduced or changed. I’ll try a sample below I hope it copy/pastes to the Hawks board.

How about something like this? (the font didn't work but the color did.)
Or Maybe this

The moderator (That would be you Bob,) could hit the forgive/excuse button for all code mistakes like a false positive on words like “association.”

This has the effect of switching the moderators job from a person that bans to a person that forgives. Members could vote for a hit on the forgive button and the moderator would be obliged to do so.

As I type this I’m smiling so maybe deep down I’m not really that serious about this.

[Bill Cummings]

My drawing skills aren't that good, and it takes me hours to come up with most of the drawings I've posted.

But I like your idea ... and one picture is worth a thousand words. Hmmm.... maybe we just need to teach Tad to draw!!  

By the way, I'd be interested in your thoughts on limiting the posting rights in the "Building the US Hawks" forum to restrict it to people who've made a commitment to actually help build a new national hang gliding association.

Thanks.

Bob I mistakenly posted my response on the Video section, Page 10 of Fatal Accident----Could you move it for me?

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob I mistakenly posted my response on the Video section, Page 10 of Fatal Accident----Could you move it for me?

Sure. It's been moved here.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I volunteer

I look forward to seeing your artwork!!

[SamKellner]

Not for the art work.

the slippery anchor point for your ban hammer

[Bill Cummings]

Sam,
I can just see the picture now you working the thumb pump on the oil can right over my anchor hand. My anchor could be a hand full of tall dead grass.

[TadEareckson]

I'd like to provide some insight into how Tad has used deception in his earlier post...

Better make it good, Bob.

Here's the ACTUAL quote that Tad didn't mention...

And here's the actual CONTEXT of that quote that Bob isn't mentioning:

Tad Eareckson - 2011/06/05

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* you can physically do it - there's NO legitimate excuse for not doing it. Somebody make a case otherwise.

It was an idea presented for discussion and debate. Not as text ready to be chiseled into regulatory granite.

Tad's use of the wrong quote was deceptive because it made my original quote ... appear to be inaccurate ... when it was not.

Yeah, it actually WAS/IS, Bob. EXTREMELY.

People reading Tad's posts should be aware of how he "cherry picks" quotes to win arguments. I believe this is dishonest and it does a disservice to our sport and our goals.

People reading Tad's posts should be aware that he "cherry picks" quotes to most accurately represent his current position. People can go back into the archives and find stuff I wrote when I was an idiot brainwashed Ridgely 130 pound Greenspot zombie which I'd totally recommend they totally ignore.

I'd also totally recommend that people totally ignore some things that Wallaby published in the 1998/02 edition of Hang Gliding magazine regarding aerotowing:

A weak link connects the V-pull to the release, providing a safe limit on the tow force. If you fail to maintain the correct tow position (centered, with the wheels of the tug on the horizon), the weak link will break before you can get into too much trouble.

Should you find yourself low behind the tug, you may need to actually push out on the control bar forcefully, resulting in a "past normal" bar position, that in non-towing situations would lead to a stall. However, because of the "pull" of the tow line, this action will result in a CLIMB, and not a stall. Stay with the tug using pitch input. If you are low, PUSH OUT!

To stay safe and competent it's crucial that you stay abreast of current thinking and advisories. So you should go to Wallaby's website:

http://www.wallaby.com/aerotow_primer.php

and bring yourself up to speed with their CURRENT positions on these issues.

A weak link connects the V-pull to the release, providing a safe limit on the tow force. If you fail to maintain the correct tow position (centered, with the wheels of the tug on the horizon), the weak link will break before you can get into too much trouble.

Should you find yourself low behind the tug, you may need to actually push out on the control bar forcefully, resulting in a "past normal" bar position, that in non-towing situations would lead to a stall. However, because of the "pull" of the tow line, this action will result in a CLIMB, and not a stall. Stay with the tug using pitch input. If you are low, PUSH OUT!

We're all capable of learning from our victims' past mistakes and making things better and safer for everyone.

With regard to the primary topic, Tad's "MANDATORY" rule...

It wasn't a rule, Bob. It was an idea thrown out for discussion.

...includes the modifier "if you can PHYSICALLY do it". He doesn't say "if you can SAFELY do it".

And the cherry that Bob conveniently DOESN'T pick when he attempts to make cases like this:

Tad Eareckson - 2011/11/12

And IF we wanna do something specifically about lift and tug... Amend:

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* you can physically do it - there's NO legitimate excuse for not doing it.

so it reads:

Lift and tug is MANDATORY *IF* you can physically and safely do it - there's NO legitimate excuse for not doing it.

which was my intent anyway. By "physically" I didn't mean heroic and stupid efforts.

And on 2011/11/13 Bob responded with:

OK, who decides whether it can be "safely" done or not?

So it's not like he was or should've been totally unaware of my clarification and it makes one wonder a bit if Bob's deliberately trying to distort reality and misrepresent whatever he can to malign my character and discredit me as much as possible. Or maybe he just wants to waste of as much of my time as possible by compelling me to defend myself against all these misrepresentations, distortions, aspersions, and false trumped up charges so it limits my ability to work on anything of substance.

There's a big difference - sometimes a life and death difference. His 2011/10/24 post mentions difficulty using lift-and-tug in "light or nonexistent air", but he doesn't want to recognize the difficulties with that technique in strong and dangerous air.

That's because in strong and dangerous air responsible pilots use adequate crew and anybody stupid enough to put himself in a position in which ten pounds of tension on the suspension will push him over the tipping point is a threat to himself, his glider, my glider in the setup area, the site, pets, parked cars, baby strollers, and the power supply to the valley below. And he deserves whatever happens to him. And the gene pool and teaching of Darwinian evolution in seventh grade biology classrooms will be WAY better off for it.

That's why I've suggested that if we do adopt a "lift and tug" regulation, it MUST include a clause allowing pilots to use their own judgement in determining whether it's safe to use that method in each circumstance.

Assuming that I'd be pushing some kind of mandatory lift and tug regulation...

A driver on the interstate doesn't get to decide - in his OWN JUDGMENT - what does and doesn't constitute aggressive and reckless driving. Cops, courts, judges, juries tend to make those calls. Something that may be perfectly appropriate in some conditions and circumstances may be deserving of a bullet in the side of the head in others. (And I've seen examples.) There's no point in having rules and standards if you write them such that someone can invent any idiot excuse he feels like for ignoring them.